John Redwood: I rise to support the opposition to the programme motion. It is another travesty of democracy that we should be expected to be allocated time on a range of sensitive and important constitutional matters about how something as crucial as planning should be decided. It may be that there are provisions for which the time allocated by Ministers is too great. However, there will undoubtedly be occasions on which the issue is so important that many more Members would like to join in and to have the opportunity to be here, if only a more sensible time had been chosen for considering such matters.
	I urge Ministers to think again, even now. It may be that we can consider the Bill in the total amount of time that they have made available, but they should allow the House to decide how that time is best spent and how the priorities should be reflected in that debate. Often, when we give people greater freedom, they show greater responsibility, and we get a better quality of debate that concentrates more on the issues that matter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) powerfully made the case that the Bill will set up an unelected quango to make extremely important decisions, whereas I and many of my constituents believe that there should be a stronger democratic input. I would add that many of my constituents feel that there should be more influence from the locality, not less. They do not feel that their local views are properly considered under the current process, because there is so much centralising, railroading and regional, overarching influence. The situation will be even worse if we have an unelected national quango making important decisions and forcing consequential decisions on local authorities once the main decision has been taken. We need proper time to debate safeguards and guarantees for local empowerment and influence over such decisions.
	I am not one who wishes to stop every new development, and I certainly am not one who thinks that we need to resist all the important infrastructure and energy projects that this country is crying out for. The reason why such projects have been delayed in the past decade is not so much the planning system, but the Government, who have singularly failed to have a positive energy or transport policy. They have singularly failed to provide a framework in which the private sector can operate, or to make public funding available for public projects, so that that infrastructure can be put in place. They have wasted 11 years, and now come forward with this fig leaf of a Bill, saying that it was the planning system that was wrong. Eleven years into a Labour Government—somewhere near their end, we hope—they have decided that they can reform the planning permission system to try to accelerate the projects that they have prevented by chopping and changing, dithering and delaying and going to endless consultation on all the infrastructure issues to do with energy and transport.
	I also wish to condemn the guillotine because the Bill contains a taxation measure that will provide the opportunity, through secondary regulation, to set up levies on development projects. I shall not go into whether that is good or bad, as I hope that we will have time to discuss that properly within the limits of the timetable motion, but such a tax measure is surely of some importance. It therefore deserves prime-time debate and as much time as the House thinks necessary to consider the whys and wherefores of the matter. It might restrict, defer or delay development, and we need the opportunity to probe, test and examine that case.
	Above all, we need enough time to show that we are sick and tired of local communities being overridden by national and regional planners. We are sick and tired of mock consultations that go on for too long and do not take local opinion seriously. The Opposition do not want more delay, and we would welcome any sensible measure that reduced how long it takes to make important planning decisions, but the system has to understand the power and passion of local feeling and must find a way of coming to just decisions having taking those feelings seriously. The system proposed in the Bill would not do that, and it is a further democratic travesty that it is going to be railroaded through on a guillotine that will not leave enough time to debate some of the most sensitive issues and that might allow too much time for other issues.
	I ask the Government to think again, please. They are so unpopular because they have damaged our Parliament and undermined our democracy. Do they really want to stand arraigned again today for a further body blow against our democracy? This is an attack on the right of our local communities to be heard on planning and an attack on the right of this House to examine serious measures for more public spending, more quangos and more taxation. The Government are in the dock, and they will be even more unpopular if they insist on driving the measure through.

Peter Bone: Pages 2375 to 2473 of today's Order Paper contain the amendments and new clauses that the Government are proposing. The Government are yet again trying to push through a measure that is controversial. They are determined, at every opportunity, to restrict debate on controversial matters. The Government do not get it. They should want to debate controversial measures rather than push them through. That is why they are failing and not communicating with the public.
	In the last week that the House sat, we debated the Second Reading of what we might call the "Yes Minister" Bill. The debate lasted two hours and 44 minutes. There were three Conservative Back-Bench speakers, none from the Govt and none from the Liberal Democrats. That left unused more than three hours that could have been used for debate. It seems that whenever something is not controversial, there is plenty of time to debate it, but there is no time to debate controversial things. The Lisbon treaty is another example. The Government brought in a measure to restrict the amount of time that we could debate an issue in Committee.
	I urge the Government to think again. If they really want to communicate with the British public and put their ideas forward—if they really have a vision for Britain—let us debate that and not hide behind programming motions.

John Healey: I am hardly curbing the House's time; I am ensuring that more than two full days—particularly if we are able to get beyond this programme motion debate—we can debate the issues at stake on the Order Paper. Let me be clear that we have not sought to make fundamental changes to the scope or nature of the Bill; we have attempted to refine it, particularly in light of points made in Committee. This is far from being a new Bill, as some have tried to argue, although there are some areas of important amendment, not least those that we will consider tonight, which are about this House's ability to scrutinise strongly the new proposed national policy statements. Contrary to what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) said, we want Members to give due attention to these provisions, and contrary to what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) has argued, this programme motion is designed to help and not hide debate on the main issues.
	I respect the fact that there are Members of this House who speak fiercely on the point of principle on any programme motion, whatever the subject, but we have departed from the usual by giving two days to this consideration. We have spread the consideration over the full two days and we have allocated the time to where the debate and the interest is likely to be greatest. I commend the motion to the House.

John Healey: I suppose that it is fair for hon. Members to have a go at me and at the Government over the number of amendments tabled on Report, but it is also reasonable to recognise the complexity of the Bill, and especially of the prize that we are trying to create, which is supported by both sides of the House, of a single consent regime in place of a maze of other consents and pieces of legislation, some dating back 50 years or more. At each stage, if we have heard serious, well argued and evidence-based points that suggest that the framework in the Bill is not adequate or could be clearer or stronger, I have tried to respond. That is largely what we have tried to do in many of the amendments.
	The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) questioned the number of amendments earlier, but I was pleased by the tone that he struck in dealing with this group. He said that it was good to see changes to the highway definitions and thresholds, and I appreciate that. He also gave us credit for listening to views expressed in Committee on railways, and he welcomed the amendments on the power to direct clusters of, for instance, wind farms just below the 50 MW threshold, which appear sensible to several other hon. Members.
	The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. On cross-border roads, decision-making will continue to be split between England, Scotland and Wales, and the English developments that fall within the categories to be determined by the IPC will be determined by it. The schemes that cross borders are now often planned on a whole-network basis. The Highways Agency currently plans for cross-border highways, and it does so in conjunction with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. I see no reason why that arrangement, which works reasonably well, cannot continue in the future.
	On clusters in Wales, I must be blunt. It is not the case that Welsh Ministers have expressed any enthusiasm for directing wind farm applications in Wales to the IPC, so we have not moved in that direction—

John Healey: The question of where we set the threshold for wind farms has been set in the context of looking at the UK's energy security and energy supply strategy, which is a reserved power. The 50 MW threshold is the appropriate way to reflect what need to be, nevertheless, a range of planning responsibilities that are properly devolved and should properly remain devolved in Wales. That is the approach that we have taken.
	The hon. Member for Clwyd, West asked why only railways will have permitted development rights. We are protecting all permitted development rights in the Bill, but the railways are explicit, because of the drafting of how we will deal with the thresholds. In addition, the Highways Agency has the power to carry out similar types of works via an administrative order. That is the equivalent for highways of the permitted development rights for railways. Ports and airports have explicit numerical thresholds for those works and so, if the hon. Gentleman likes to see it that way, the permitted development rights for ports and airports are preserved in our proposed approach.
	On the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), I tried earlier—I shall not repeat myself—to deal with the intent behind the highways amendments and the approach to the question of cycle paths and the definition of trunk roads. I understand the Local Government Association's general concern, but since 2001 the Department for Transport has detrunked 175 sections of road and thereby passed them to local authority control. More of those are in the pipeline. The DFT specifically welcomed and invited suggestions of where other trunk roads might be passed to local authority control. Finally, the DFT has confirmed that it plans to consult during the summer on local highways consents under the Highways Act 1980 that could be passed to lower tiers of government. Rather than decision making being taken further out of the lands of local authorities, we are not changing any of the consents at present. This is part of a number of steps that the Department is quite rightly considering to put more under local control.
	I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the agreements, including voluntary ones, that are currently in place at Heathrow. I have tried to explain the intent of the definition that we propose. He is quite right to say—in particular, before we get to the debate next week—that it is important to be precisely clear about that. I will review tomorrow the  Hansard record, and if I feel that what has been said is not complete and clear enough, I will certainly write to him to ensure that he has the information that he is looking for.

John Healey: A series of important points, some of which I touched on, have been made, but I shall deal with them—I hope adequately—in my response to the debate.
	First, I say to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) that we believe that what we have under the current regime—the range of provisions that a decision maker, which in this case is the IPC, can include in development consent orders—is the right mix.
	Our starting principle has been to try to ensure that, as far as possible, orders that grant development consent cover all the consents and authorisations to proceed—if that is the judgment of the commission and the judgment on the application—necessary for the nationally significant infrastructure project to proceed.
	As I described earlier this afternoon, that is one of the important prizes in the overall reforms that we propose in the Bill. However, we believe that two aspects—bylaws in particular and powers to make criminal offences—fall into what I suppose is a different category. We do not believe that, on its own, the IPC should decide such matters, nor should promoters apply simply to the IPC for them to be included in a development consent order. So, we have constructed the Bill in such a way that promoters may continue, as they do now, to apply separately under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Harbours Act 1964 if they want bylaw-making powers or the powers to create criminal offences for particular reasons related to their project. Government amendment No. 115 applies not simply to harbour developments; it applies to the 1992 Act and the 1964 Act together.
	The hon. Member for Clwyd, West probed a little further on harbours. New clause 21 allows the inclusion in a development consent order of the creation of a new harbour authority or the revision of provisions governing an existing harbour authority. That is expressed in schedule 2 to the 1964 Act. I did not spell that out before, but these remarks might be helpful because he was probing to find out precisely what that might entail.
	The schedule includes such things as the creation of a harbour authority, including the approval of a constitution; the conferring of powers and duties; setting the jurisdiction of the authority and allowing it to ask a justice of the peace to appoint constables; the revision of a harbour authority or the merging of two harbour authorities into one; the transfer of property from one harbour authority to another; the disposal of property vested in a harbour authority; and the charging of tolls, fares and other charges. That is the range of provision in existing legislation that we propose potentially to make available, where it is justified, as part of the single development consent.
	On coastal protection, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) wants an assurance, particularly with the Marine Bill in prospect, that there will be no watering down of enforcement powers. Precisely for that reason, we are taking the approach that we are. Rather than make the Bill disapply the need for consents either under the Coastal Protection Act 1949 or under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, we are making the consent a deemed consent precisely so that the full range of enforcement powers under both Acts remains in place and can be discharged.
	The amendments delete the references to the 1949 Act, reinserting them as a deemed consent. They also insert in the Bill, for the first time, licences under the 1985 Act, again as deemed licences. We have done that to make the enforcement provisions as strong as they are at present. That gives the Secretary of State the same power to intervene in an emergency to require the owner of infrastructure offshore to take certain actions that may be required to prevent a danger to navigation. However, because those powers are operational only where what is termed a section 34 consent is in place, they will not be operational if a development consent order has disapplied rather than deemed as part of the consent agreement. Otherwise, the Secretary of State would lose the powers that he needs at the moment.
	To return to the starting point of the hon. Gentleman's concern, the Marine Bill will rework the regulatory regime for offshore development by streamlining the CPA consents and FEPA licences in a single regime. Uniform enforcement would be facilitated if the IPC deemed consents in respect of offshore nationally significant infrastructure project consents. That is the purpose of our amendment No. 165, clarifying, therefore, the fact that enforcement for those consents is to be carried out under those two existing provisions, which will, in time, be consolidated in the new Marine Bill. Incidentally, they will be enforced through the new marine management organisation.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman was concerned about the breadth of the powers in relation to harbours. I have explained the restrictions under amendment No. 115. I have confirmed that the development consent orders will not allow the creation or modification of bylaws or criminal offences and why we believe that is right. I make it clear to the House that the development consent order for harbours will be able to provide for the creation of the harbour authority only where that is necessary or expedient in relation to a particular harbour nationally significant infrastructure project application.
	I say to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the fact that different items are listed in the Bill and in the proposal that we are making does not make any of those things less important. I tried to explain earlier that we are consolidating what we already have in clause 109(4) in new schedule 3 and adding items that we think are appropriate but that are not yet in that list. That is why the proposed list is longer and more comprehensive, and therefore a better reflection of the matters that may be required within a single development consent order, as well as appropriate for the commission to consider as part of any application, if that is what the promoter decides.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman tempts me into territory that we shall deal with at length in debates to come. Essentially, the Bill contains a number of new steps, including, for the first time, a legal duty and requirement on any promoter of an application or a project to consult widely—local councils and local communities—in preparing an application. So, promoters much make clear the degree to which they want to include in a single application elements covering any of those areas as part of the consent application.
	The commission will not even receive and consider any application unless the pre-application requirements have been properly carried out. Then, any local interest, local group, local resident, local council or anyone concerned will have the right through the application process to register their concern in writing, and will have the right to be heard orally as part of one of the sessions that the IPC will conduct. Therefore, they can alert the IPC to areas that perhaps require questioning by the commission of the promoter during consideration of an application. There should be ample information and publication, proper cross-questioning and full consideration of any elements such as this that may form part of an application for a single consent.
	I hope that what I have said helps the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is hard to understand why the Planning Bill, having gone through all its procedures thus far, has had a hugely important new schedule incorporated into at this late stage. The new schedule has far-reaching effects. I cannot think of another Bill containing provisions to correct errors in the way in which this one does. Normally, such significant changes or such significant powers would be available only to a court, but the IPC would be able to say to a promoter, " Sorry chaps, we got it wrong, and we will correct it now" or, "No, you have to go through the whole thing again." Under this new schedule, it would depend on a whim as to whether or not the IPC would require the promoter to go through the whole process again. The decision would be arbitrary, which is extraordinary.
	I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some indication of the Government's thinking as to how the provision came about. In what circumstances would he expect the IPC or the Secretary of State making the order to be able to modify that order, and to what scale would that be possible? How serious would the circumstances need to be for the order to be revoked altogether and for the poor old promoter, who would probably have spent many years and many thousands of pounds—probably hundreds of thousands of pounds, or perhaps even millions of pounds—on the project, to have to go through the whole process again. This very serious matter would normally, under other Acts of Parliament, be considered by the courts, so I am not sure why it is being delegated to the IPC or to the Secretary of State.

Parmjit Dhanda: The clock may be against us, so I shall write to hon. Members with assurances if I cannot answer their questions. In many respects, these are amendments of last resort. We do not want to see clerical mistakes, but when they occur it is right and proper that we have a system in place for changes to be made with a minimum of consequential problems, so that projects can be completed as quickly as possible—
	 It being half past Seven o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order  this day].
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Madam Deputy Speaker  then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

John Healey: I would expect the first draft national policy statements to be produced and proposed by Secretaries of State this year. It is therefore necessary to put in place the pre-commencement provisions that I have mentioned.
	In case my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) feels that I have not gone the whole hog, let me explain that my job as the midhusband of the Bill is to produce a new system for dealing with large planning projects. That system will be based on new national policy statements. I have explained the criteria that must be met, and the processes that have to be undergone, for national policy statements to be put in place.
	In the end, it is not for me to judge or decide whether a policy paper has undergone those processes; that is the responsibility and a matter for the judgment of the relevant Secretary of State, and they will have to explain the view that they take. If, in their judgment, there has not been the sustainability appraisal, parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation that national policy statements require under the Bill, it is their responsibility to put in place measures to ensure that that is changed. If no national policy statement is formally designated and in place, the IPC cannot decide on a major application. It could examine the application, but it would be for the Secretary of State to make the decisions on the application, as is the case now. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied with that; I have to say that I do not feel that I can go much further on that point.
	Together, the new clause and the amendments in the group fulfil our commitment to provide for parliamentary scrutiny. They take the significant step of setting that out in legislation. That was done with the encouragement of the Select Committee Chairmen, who were keen for us to do it. I hope that the House will agree that the provisions set out significant, innovative arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny, and ensure that Parliament has a strong say, and a strong influence, on any future national policy statement. I hope that at the end of the debate, in light of what has been said, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) will not feel it necessary to press her amendments to a Division.
	I shall now speak rather more briefly, because I recognise the level of the House's interest in the issues covered by this group of amendments. Through amendments Nos. 184 and 185, we have introduced provisions to deal with the blight that could be produced by a national policy statement, a proposed major project application or an order granting authorisation for compulsory purchase. Those are important provisions that give protection to people who may be affected.
	New clause 1 and amendment No. 54 seek to give the Secretary of State a specific duty to consider climate change when designating or reviewing national policy statements. Amendment No. 1 would add climate change as a factor in the decision-making framework for the IPC, which makes the decisions. I hope that Members recognise that since the publication of the Bill, there has been development of the position set out in the White Paper.
	Our objectives in relation to sustainable development are central to the consideration of future infrastructure needs. That is clearly sensible and necessary for the future of the country, whatever the infrastructure that we are talking about. That is why the Bill includes a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that national policy statements are drawn up with the objective of contributing to sustainable development. That is why national policy statements will have to be consistent with all relevant European Union law, including the habitats directive, and domestic law, including the Climate Change Bill, which will place tough duties on the Government to tackle the issues of climate change. That is why, before designating a national policy statement, Ministers must carry out an appraisal of their sustainability. The process will also apply to revisions of national policy statements, where the policy is materially affected.
	Where the EU strategic environmental assessment directive applies, we will carry out an appraisal of sustainability that will cover all the obligations in the directive, but that directive may not apply to some national policy statements, so it is necessary to have a strong assessment framework that will apply to all statements to ensure that environmental objectives in particular, and also social and economic objectives, are properly factored into the development. That is the principle, purpose and thinking behind our approach.
	The planning White Paper included a policy commitment to consider climate change when national policy statements are being developed, and we have delivered on that by requiring an appraisal of sustainability for every national policy statement, in which climate change will be considered. The new regime will also be subject to the provisions of the Climate Change Bill, when they are finally settled and put into statute. That Bill imposes a general duty on Ministers to meet carbon budgets, and to publish proposals and policies for meeting them. The Climate Change Bill will put strong measures in place, and strong duties on Government, to tackle climate change, and I would therefore argue that it is not appropriate or necessary to place a specific duty of that sort on the Secretary of State in the Bill, particularly not before the Climate Change Bill's provisions are made clear and passed by the House.
	On amendment No. 1, as I have said, the issue of climate change is dealt with in the requirement to prepare an appraisal of sustainability for national policy statements. That appraisal will be published alongside a draft national policy statement. That will be part of the public consultation that any national policy statement will have to undergo, and part of the parliamentary scrutiny of the statement.
	The effect of requiring the IPC to make judgments on the issue of climate change will be to increase the scope of its discretion, but it would be more appropriate for the issue to be dealt with thoroughly by the Secretary of State, with consultation in public and scrutiny in Parliament, when preparing and designating the national policy statement. Requiring the IPC to give a view on a specific issue is likely to introduce additional uncertainty into the process, and it could slow down the decision-making process. It is inconsistent with the approach that we are trying to take in the new system.
	I hope that I have set out the thinking behind the significant Government amendments and new clauses, and that I have been able to explain our approach on some of the issues on which hon. Friends and Opposition Members have tabled amendments. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

David Drew: I agree with that, and I shall deal with amendment No. 1 in a bit more detail in a moment. My hon. Friend is at the crux of subsection (2) of the new clause. Obviously, one change is consequent on the other, but they could have been dealt with as we have debated the changes to the Bill.
	I want to pose a particular dilemma. I like the terminology "sustainable development". I was partly responsible for the private Member's Bill that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) introduced, and we had a lot of debates on what we mean by sustainable development. We might think that the term must include climate change, but there is a danger if climate change is not categorically referred to in the Bill. There is always some clever lawyer somewhere who can define "sustainable development" as not necessarily having to take due account of climate change. That is why some of us feel strongly that such wording should be in the Bill, that there should be a duty placed on the Secretary of State, and subsequently, that the IPC should pay absolute regard to it. That is why we have tabled this new clause and the amendment.
	Subsection (2) of the new clause relates to the IPC. In a sense, the matter is consequent on the duty placed on the Secretary of State, because it is sensible that an organisation that is subsidiary to Secretary of State would also have such a duty placed on it. It is important that we set the context in which that body operates. The IPC may have a degree of scrutiny and accountability to this place through the Secretary of State, but the people chosen to work for it should be independent individuals. If they were all hired guns, who can pretend that the process will be anything other than the Government pushing through whatever they want? There will have to be a system of checks and balances with regard to who serves on the IPC and who deals with particular inquiries. If the body is independent, we must consider the extent to which it is accountable with regard to the way in which climate change is handled. In order to make that process easier, we must make climate change one of its key responsibilities when it carries out its duties, which would help rather than hinder it.
	I understand what my hon. Friend the Minister was arguing earlier—at least I think I understand what he was arguing. However, I am not sure that he completely answered the point by categorically stating that there should be duty on the Secretary of State and the IPC to give legitimacy to the process. We want to ensure not only that climate change is writ large in the national policy statements, but that anything worked through as a result of those statements, particularly if it involves the IPC, should be entirely subject to climate change.
	That would draw together those three great pieces of legislation, which are historic and which the Government should be proud of passing. However, it seems somewhat strange that the mechanism for pushing through those changes, which could change all our lifestyles, is not quite there. That mechanism is not mentioned categorically, but is entirely dependent upon Ministers, albeit to some extent working with this place and the other place. However, we all know that that is subject to all manner of vagaries. If such a mechanism is not mentioned categorically, some of us fear that the climate change agenda will be diluted and perhaps even forgotten.
	That is why I have tabled new clause 1 and the amendments standing in my name. I heard what the hon. Member for Beckenham has said. The Opposition must make their mind up. They have tabled their amendments—we thought that ours were slightly better—but we do not believe that we have a monopoly on wisdom. There has been, I hope, a meeting of minds, because we are trying to get the Bill right. Some of us have been working extensively with non-governmental organisations, which are completely nonplussed by the Government, who, in other ways, have moved extensively and been helpful. Something that could be in place for a decade or longer must be got right.
	On the aspect that we are discussing, there is, dare I say, not only no meeting of minds, but questions about why the Government are not prepared to do what we think is the right thing—to state categorically that there should be a duty on the Secretary of State and the IPC to have regard to climate change.

Daniel Rogerson: The debate on this group of amendments is the main event this evening. Three elements have emerged from the discussion so far, and I suppose that I, too, should refer to them.
	First, we had an interesting exchange about the aviation White Paper and the designation of national policy statements. The hon. Member for Beckenham has said that she was encouraged by what the Minister said about the conclusion of his debate with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. However, my recollection is that the Minister said that the matter would be one for the relevant Secretary of State. I do not find that wholly reassuring, because there will be many pressures on the Government, as we all know, to deliver all sorts of things, particularly on aviation.
	I hoped that the prompting of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about the different nature of the White Paper and how it relates to what a national policy statement is designed to be would mean that it could not be considered. The Minister was clear that there are criteria by which the Secretary of State must examine a White Paper or any existing guidelines, to determine whether it could function realistically as a national policy statement. That is a huge responsibility to place on the Secretary of State's shoulders, when all the other national policy statements may be considered by another process. I am therefore a little concerned that we are not quite at the stage of being reassured on that point.

Richard Benyon: I wish to speak to my amendment No. 3. The Minister and members of the Committee will recall that I raised the issue of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields in Committee. As I said then, the Draper report, funded by the Department of Health and published in 2005, found that children who had lived within 200 m of high-voltage power lines since birth had a 70 per cent. higher risk of developing childhood leukaemia. The Government have received recommendations for action on the issue from the Health Protection Agency, from the Government's own stakeholder group SAGE—the Stakeholder Advisory Group ELF EMF—and from those involved in the cross-party inquiry on childhood leukaemia and EMFs last year.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who could not be present for the debate, has given a lead. Recently, along with members of Children with Leukaemia, he met the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), who stated—as he has stated elsewhere—that his Department, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department of Health were considering proposals for precautionary measures to be introduced this year. Those measures are likely to involve either the issuing of information to the public and planning authorities, or planning controls restricting the building of houses very close to high-voltage power lines.
	The Bill provides for the expansion of essential infrastructure, such as high-voltage power lines, and for the fast-tracking of planning approval for such projects. I believe that it should also provide for the introduction of precautionary measures. If the Government introduce planning controls applying to the building of houses and schools near power lines, the IPC must be able to implement planning controls on new power lines near houses and schools.
	As we know, for we have debated it at tortuous length, the Bill also provides for the creation of national policy statements on infrastructure. If the Government are not prepared to accept an amendment allowing the IPC to consider EMFs and health concerns in their decision making, I want to receive assurances that high-voltage overhead transmission lines will be the subject of a national policy statement.
	Amendment No. 3 would simply require the Secretary of State to consult on potential health risks arising from national planning policy during the drafting of national policy statements. I have deliberately left the wording vague. No doubt civil servants advising the Minister have expressed the fear that he may be required to consult all sorts of weird and wonderful organisations that are worried about energy fields and the like. Actually, we leave it to the Secretary of State to designate the organisations that he or she feels are "appropriate" to consult on the risks to health arising from the national policy statement.
	Many closely involved with this matter, such as the excellent pressure group Children with Leukaemia, are concerned that the proposed system will allow much less consultation and opportunity for representation from members of the public, as the IPC will be given only six months from the initial meeting to take evidence and another three months to deliberate. The IPC can decide what subjects are relevant to the discussion at the evidence sessions and can explicitly exclude subjects that are deemed to be covered by a national policy statement, which of course could include health.
	Obviously this is an extremely emotive issue for families and I ask the Minister to consider the implications for families and parents when a new proposed high-voltage power line or large transformer station is to be placed within close reach of housing or a school, as the understanding of the risks involved increases. This is an opportunity to address those concerns and to put a precautionary principle in the Bill. I ask the Minister to share his thoughts and an up-to-date assessment of where these negotiations are going in his Department and the two others that I have mentioned. I ask him also to give some comfort to the House that the Government are taking the matter seriously and are addressing a matter of great concern to a great many people. How he responds will determine how I proceed with the amendment.

John Healey: It is not different at all. Everyone will have a right to submit evidence to the commission; they can do that in writing. Everyone will have the right to be heard in an open session if they require that. We seek to put in place specific open sessions for those whose properties are affected by compulsory purchase orders. The questioning will be led by the commission itself, not by lawyers. It will not involve the kind of adversarial, sometimes off-putting, hugely expensive and often lengthy lawyer-driven process in which local voices are normally the first to get lost. We can ensure that the inquiry can be conducted fairly and faster than is sometimes the case in the big inquiries, some of which get bogged down for years.
	On the issue of existing policy statements, I say to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, to paraphrase a former US President: read my words. [Hon. Members: "Read my lips!"] I said "to paraphrase". I encourage the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy to consult the  Official Report tomorrow.
	I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that I am glad to have his support for national policy statements and his acceptance that the arrangements on parliamentary scrutiny and public consultation, which we have now agreed with the Select Committee Chairs, are an important step forward. However, simply saying that he might wish to abolish the other place is beyond the scope of the Bill and does not answer the concern that the other place may take a different view, if that is equally binding to that of this place, on a policy statement. It is not an answer simply to say that the Parliament Act 1949 is in place; that is used only for legislation.

John Healey: Will my hon. Friend forgive me if I do not? I have given way to him so often today, and I want to deal with the other points that have been raised.
	It is good to see the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) in his place for this part of the proceedings. I hope that he will accept that his amendment No. 3 seeks to add a level of detail that is not appropriate for the Bill—certainly not before the Government have come to their conclusions following consideration of the specialist advisory report or the recommendations and views of the Health Protection Agency.
	Let me give the hon. Gentleman what I hope he will take as a note of encouragement. The appraisal of sustainability that I have made clear will be required as part of the process for producing a draft national policy statement—certainly before the statement can be designated—will need to consider, as an appraisal of sustainability and not just the environment, population and human health as part of the consideration of social, economic and environmental effects. Furthermore, there is a provision in the Bill that gives the Secretary of State a power to prescribe statutory consultees in secondary legislation. I say to the hon. Gentleman that this is the process and that is the place in which to consider the roles of the organisations in which he has an interest.

Daniel Kawczynski: My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) and I have been campaigning hard to try to retain as many post offices in Shropshire as possible, but this evening I wish to present a petition on Ditherington—an appropriate name for the Prime Minister—post office in Shrewsbury. I have worked with the leader of the Labour party in Shrewsbury, Councillor Mosley, and the local Conservative councillor, Malcolm Price, to try to retain Ditherington post office, which is vital, providing the services that it does.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of users of Ditherington Post Office
	Declares that the plan to close five Post Offices in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency will have a detrimental effect on the lives of local residents. The local Post Office is a vital and integral element of the local community, supporting social interaction between residents. They should not simply be assessed on an economic basis without taking into consideration the social economic value they offer to the local community. The proposed partial replacement of three of the Post Offices earmarked for closure by a mobile vehicle with restricted hours, and in some cases parked on the side of roads or in lay-bys, is a substandard solution not benefiting the world we live in today.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to instruct Post Office Ltd. to ensure that Ditherington Post Office is kept open.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000199]
	 To lie upon the Table.

Linda Gilroy: I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate. The future of the water industry affects many areas of the public and private sectors, including the private citizen mindful of the water bills he or she pays; the farmer concerned about the possibility of drought; the community worried about the risk of flooding; the architects and planners building to meet the demand for housing; and the Government in co-operating with other nations to ensure worldwide access to clean and sustainable supplies of water.
	Earlier this year, the all-party parliamentary water group concluded its investigation into the future of the UK's water industry. I want to put on record the help we received from eaga plc, the Society of British Water and Wastewater Industries, Unison, Water UK, Wessex Water, the Consumer Council for Water and WWF-UK.
	I am pleased to see that, in addition to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), some members of the all-party group are in their places, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who both took part in the inquiry.
	The fact that representatives from more than 70 different organisations—ranging from business and industry to trade unions and consumer groups, scientists and environmentalists—attended the report's launch is testament to the importance of this issue. We produced a range of conclusions and recommendations touching on many areas. However, today I wish to focus on affordability and the future of metering and charging. I hope to allow a little time for my right hon. Friend, the chairman of the all-party group, to add more about water services and management and issues relating to drought and flooding.
	I make no apology for the fact that for me the imperative remains affordability, which is at the top of our agenda in the south-west. People face rising fuel prices, and other cost-of-living pressures, set against the backdrop of the credit crunch—difficult economic circumstances which our Government are well placed to guide us through. Water is not a luxury but a necessity, and for that reason we must do all we can to ensure that the regulatory framework bears down on what it costs our constituents. The Minister will know that I have long campaigned on the issue of unfair water charges in the south-west, caused by the botched privatisation by the Conservative Government, so that our average household water bill is £100 more than elsewhere in the country. Where are the Conservatives tonight?
	For elderly individuals living alone on a basic pension or for lone parents with young children, water bills can be a struggle regardless of where they live. The fact is that high water charges often affect most those individuals and groups least able to cope. There are close links between water affordability and water efficiency, so in addressing affordability there are opportunities to dovetail well with the Government's environmental agenda.
	From 1997 onwards, the Government have shown sustained commitment to tackling fuel poverty. Under the Warm Front scheme, representatives visit customers to advise them of ways they can reduce their energy bills, install energy-saving features, such as cavity insulation, and undertake benefit entitlement checks. In my constituency, the scheme has visited 2,832 households, saving them each an average of £200 on their fuel bills.
	As the Minister knows, the Warm Front model was used for a similar scheme in the water affordability pilot that was carried out in the south-west. That small study of 520 households managed to find savings of more than 10 times the cost of providing the service. We can imagine the savings that could be made if such a scheme were rolled out nationally. South West Water has since built on that work through its water care scheme, which will help 7,500 customers over three years and is the first of its type in the water industry. I think that Wessex Water has a similar scheme.
	I know that South West Water—Water UK has also raised the subject on behalf of the industry in general—would appreciate the same access to data sharing about people on low incomes as the Government proposed this past Friday to explore for energy companies. I hope that the Minister will raise that with his colleagues. In addition to helping to target the schemes that the water industry is introducing, such as the water care scheme that I just mentioned, such a measure could help to turn around the vicious circle of high debt that costs us all £11 per customer nationally.
	I think I am right to say that up to 40 per cent. of household energy is used to heat water. An ideal solution would therefore seem to be to combine the Warm Front and water care schemes, with representatives trained to advise on both water and energy efficiency in the same visit. The better we target such help, the more likely it is to create a virtuous circle that will enable water bills to be kept down.

Linda Gilroy: The hon. Gentleman makes a relevant point. There are many examples of sheltered housing in my constituency, as well as elsewhere in the south-west and all over the country, where such a move could significantly benefit many older people.
	Schemes and innovations such as water care can help individuals to save money. The all-party group also recommended fundamental changes to the manner in which water is provided and paid for. The most significant was our call for the phased introduction of universal metering. Indeed, in response to water charges many consumers are already switching to metering by choice. Unsurprisingly, we have seen that in particular in the south-west, where I think some 65 per cent. of consumers—about 13 out of 20—have switched to metering by choice. That has resulted in the development of a two-tier water payment system, leaving those who do not switch at a further disadvantage.
	Smart meters, or intelligent meters, present an exciting opportunity to tackle these long-neglected issues. Again, co-operation with the energy industry, which I believe to be likely to introduce smart metering, ought to provide some savings in that regard if it is tackled soon. Many believe that tariffs tailored to the circumstances of the customer could not just deal with some of the supply and demand issues, but could address issues of affordability for many customers.
	I am, of course, aware that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is conducting a review of the future of metering and charging. I hope that the Minister will update us on the progress of the review and I would be grateful if he would give the House an indication of when it is expected to report.
	I would also appreciate hearing the Minister's assessment of how far the review will go towards finding a solution to the affordability issue. Does he share my view that it could indeed provide light at the end of the tunnel for some of those constituents burdened with high bills? Of course, if that is a solution, it is a medium to long-term one, and while making water charges fairer and possibly lower for more people, we need to be realistic about the fact that there will be losers as well as winners. Some of those losers could be among the least well off if they are not protected. I am thinking especially of large families and those who need to use larger quantities of water for health reasons.
	In addition to ensuring that we make the most of the vulnerable persons regulations, I hope that the minister will consider the all-party group's call, which has also been made by the Consumer Council for Water, for changes to the tax and benefits system to support those who are struggling most to pay for water. That should be much more affordable to the Exchequer if, through the combination of measures that I have mentioned, we can reduce the extent to which they are needed.
	I also support CC Water's call to limit price rises. It has recently written to all water and sewerage companies in England and Wales to ask them
	"to return value to consumers, either by keeping price increases to inflation levels or below, or providing extra investment in pipes, sewers and treatment works that will provide future consumer benefits... We know that the industry did very well from the 2004 price review, as there was a rapid rise in value of companies and that for the first time since privatisation no water companies appealed against the price limits set by Ofwat".
	I hope that the Minister will also look at our report's recommendations on the vulnerable group regulations. Our report found that the regulations were not working as well as they could. The principal problem is that the WaterSure scheme is not reaching very many people—only 16,200 households nationally, according to the last figures in 2006-07. Not surprisingly, a substantial proportion of that number—3,800, or almost a quarter— are in the South West Water area, which covers Devon and Cornwall's population of just 1.5 million of England's total population of 50 million.
	Our all-party report recommended that the definition of customer service be extended to include vulnerable customers and be included in the PR09 price-setting review as a specified performance target. The regulator could then set goals for the companies to be proactive in reaching out to vulnerable customers on that and other aspects. I hope that the Minister is giving serious consideration to encouraging the regulator.
	Action on water charges for vulnerable customers is long overdue. Water bills have risen a lot in the past two decades. Although there have been very significant benefits to our environment, infrastructure and tourism industry through increased investment, too many people are struggling to pay bills that are unacceptably high. As things stand, the problem looks set to get worse, as shown by DEFRA's 2004 study of affordability. If that is allowed to continue, more people will fall into more debt, and as a result large bills will become larger still as companies seek to reclaim the money owed.
	The Minister must not only find a long-term and comprehensive solution to break this vicious cycle, but consider improving short-term safeguards to protect the most vulnerable. I look forward to his response and to hearing from my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe.

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend predicts my next statement. I do indeed recognise the importance of data sharing. It is wrong that companies cannot identify tenants through access to information from landlords. I am examining the situation to deal with not only those who cannot pay but those who will not pay and are abusing the system and putting up the bills of my hon. Friend's hardworking, law-abiding constituents as a result. I have talked to the water companies, including South West Water, to see how we can incorporate that. I refer my hon. Friend to the draft Queen's Speech, which included a proposal for legislation on water and flooding. I make no specific pledges on the point that she made; suffice to say that I think she can draw her own conclusions. I congratulate her on her campaign, as well as other hon. Members across the party divide.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at  nine  minutes to Eleven o'clock.